EVENTS

Speak louder, Catherine Deveny!

That Deveny…she’s always causing trouble. And good for her.

She recently appeared on a panel debate show on Australian TV, Q&A, with Peter Jensen, an Anglican bishop. Jensen is smug, smarmy ass: when he wasn’t whining that we need a respectful discussion about the issues, he was announcing that women should submit to men in marriage, that same-sex marriage is unbiblical, that homosexuality is a disease, and no, the homophobia of the church can’t possibly contribute to gay teen suicide rates. He’s one of those guys who puts on his politeness with his clerical collar, and thinks both make him absolutely right, and able to say the most vile lies with smooth confidence.

Catherine Deveny was brash, smart, and assertive, and openly atheist. She is also a woman. She spoke the truth — that the church is a medieval institution promoting homophobia and misogyny, and that the facts and an unbiased morality of equality do not support Jensen’s claims.

…I should not have been surprised at the fall-out from Catherine Deveny’s appearance on ABC’s Q&A this week. Deveny’s opposition to Anglican Archbishop, Peter Jensen, resulted in an onslaught of vitriolic criticism and abuse – even from those who claim to support her positions on asylum seekers, same-sex marriage and women’s equality.

Even the Australian weighed in with an editorial reprimanding Deveny and the ABC for failing to show the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney ‘proper regard’ and ‘respect’.

While the Australian characterises (or more accurately, caricatures) Deveny as mocking, crude, crass and intolerant, Jensen is ‘frank, concerned and conciliatory on homosexual health issues’. Deveny, we are told, was guilty of ‘shouting down’ the Archbishop.

Don’t they realize that the proper regard and respect to show a leader of institutionalized dogma is to turn him away at the door, and to spit in his eye every time he demands a respect to his position that he won’t show to women, gays, the poor, the disabled, the disenfranchised? Catherine Deveny, rather than being excesively rude, showed remarkable restraint at having to sit next to the poisonous old fraud.

Curiously, as this was one of the rare Q&A’s where the women (Catherine Deveny, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Anna Krien) outnumbered the men, the male guests (Peter Jensen and Chris Evans) still managed to dominate the conversation 55 per cent to 45 per cent.

Comments

Don’t they realize that the proper regard and respect to show a leader of institutionalized dogma is to turn him away at the door, and to spit in his eye every time he demands a respect to his position that he won’t show to women, gays, the poor, the disabled, the disenfranchised?

Even the Australian weighed in with an editorial reprimanding Deveny and the ABC for failing to show the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney ‘proper regard’ and ‘respect’.

You mean the Australian,the paper that runs at a loss so that Rupert Murdochs conservative views get prestige and a national audience held the conservative line and said woman who speak women’s issues bad, man who put foot on throat of speaky woman good. Well, I never…

Thanks to the Catholic church, “priest” is also becoming synonymous with the vilest scum of our society, twisted old men from some medieval remnant.

I will say here out of fairness, that not all clergypeople fall into this category. Some are intelligent, worthwhile human beings without a doubt. They just aren’t very common any more and don’t have the visibility of the vaguely humanoid toad ones, who aren’t outliers but instead leaders.

But it isn’t all bad. They help us a whole lot. Xians, making atheists since 33 AD.

People who bemoan that there’s censorship and they’re not allowed to say something on national TV should be hit with a ton of bricks on the stage. Or a falling piano. Probably topped by a whale and flowerpot.

Oh, and the wonderful pious christian lady practically screaming: we are the majoity and therefore right.

Oh, dear Mr. bishop, since you justified the wife’s submission withthe husband’s promise to give his life if necessary, I’ll propose you a deal you must think wonderful:
If I win 10 millions in the lottery, I’ll give you 90% of it. Until then, you’ll give me 20$ each day. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

That was so nice to see Catherine Deveny sticking the knife in every so often. Peter Jensen was a fatuous oaf–bemoaning the lack of discussion on gay issues, like his church had no responsibility for that. I agree completely with the woman in the audience who asked him if he were serious. What a shame he got the last word.

Anyone who reaches the level of bishop is obviously an asshole and a fraud. Religion was created for the employment of clergy, in other words parasites. It is not only at the high level, all clergy fall into the category.

I distinctly remember my reaction to a report, yeeeears ago, from an ABC religious radio producer. They were lining up speakers for a 6 or 8 week series, each week devoted entirely to one speaker/religion. I can’t remember which Jensen it was, but he refused participation because he couldn’t accept that other religions were involved. No, Mr Jensen, they said, you’ll have the whole program to yourself.

No! he said, that’s not good enough. Turns out he couldn’t take part if anyone would advance *any* religious ideas but his own (warped) version of Anglicanism. He’d rather not have his voice heard at all than be seen as one religion among many. These men are dangerous ideologues.

People might recall Catherine’s retweeting of some ill-chosen words uttered on another episode of #qanda by the Catholic archbishop of Sydney, the odious Cardinal George Pell, which resulted in him throwing his dummy out of the cot and siccing the church’s lawyers onto her. She’s on a roll of late; having skewered douchebagges like Peter Reith, Angry Anderson and radio shock-jock Michael Smith on SBS’s Go Back To Where You Came From for their insensitivity to the plight of refugees, her most recent target is the Queensland premier’s gutting of the state’s Arts budget to revitalise the horse racing industry. Campbell Newman went to the trouble of tone trolling her by asking the Victoria Police to pay her a house call.

Come on: by now you should know that when a reactionary demands “respect”, he means obsequiousity, deference, submissiveness… And these things can be demanded: beat a guy with stick long enough, and he will “respectfully” calls you his lord and master.

Speaking up is great, but there is something to be said for doing it eloquently.

I agree 100% with every point Ms. Deveny was making, yet I found myself cringing when she opened her mouth because she went about it in a clumsy and unpersuasive way.

Advancing the causes of equality and secularism will require being loud and often being impolite, I agree, but it will also require persuasive rhetoric, and measured logical refutation of the bullshit that the religious establishments constantly throw at us.

Jensen was the ultimate concern troll (and tone troll) on Q&A, pretending that he didn’t think he has all the answers and that he just wanted rational discussion. This is just his clever way of trying to make it socially acceptable to discuss the gays as a public health problem agin while not sounding compassionless. But anyone who knows anything about him knows that he’s dedicated his whole life to being sure of himself.

Catherine on the other hand was rational and pertinent, as well as passionately expressed. The people praising Jensen have either fallen for his shtick or share his ideology.

Hi Catherine! I gather you’d had 65,000 hits in a day *before* Pharyngulation? o_O

I’d mentioned your mate Campbell in the comments above; may I also say what a pleasure it is seeing you demolish the tweets of that repulsive bigoted shithead Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby. (Australian Homophobe’s Lobby would be more accurate.)

I agreed with everything that Catherine Deveny said, yet found myself wincing when she spoke more than once. In a forum such as Q&A, which is watched by a very diverse cross-section of people, tone does actually matter. The way Catherine made her points allowed people to write her off as a “hysterical female”, rather than actually having to consider what she said, while Peter Jensen came across as cool, calm, collected, respectable, in control, and yes, just a little bit smarmy. She should have called him out on his concern trolling rather than calling him a dinosaur.

Thanks for taking up this issue, PZ. Although you did link to Jane Douglas’s (@Jane_Douglas) blog at the end, I’d like to add to that recommendation.

Jane is a former fundamentalist (Quiverfull sect) and a former pastor’s wife who provides a unique perspective on the dynamics between Archbishop Jensen and Deveny on Q&A. It reminded her, she writes, of a psychologically abusive technique, much used in the church, called ‘gaslighting’. The aim is to enforce what Jane calls, ‘the vestigial voice of the church as I knew it – of male pastors, of God: “You are woman. Sit still! Be prettier! Take up less space! Be less powerful! Make less noise! Be nicer! We like you better when you are nicer.”

He might have wrong ideas about what various people ought to be doing, but that’s not misogyny.

Not the fucking dictionary misogyny excuse again.

No, he’s just an exemplar of the feral part of the Anglican church in Australia – mainly concentrated in the Sydney diocese, thanks to Moore Theological College turning out prats like the Jensens as though they were rubber-stamped – which openly call for women to ‘obey and submit’ to men in everything, and have equally antiquated, but more openly bigoted views towards LGBT people.

He’s an openly anti-egalitarian sexist homophobe, but because he doesn’t specifically “hate women”, that magically doesn’t make him a misogynist. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Wow, ksolway. Seeing as the topic under discussion is Catherine Deveny’s appearance on ABC’s Q and A, and the only words of those that she actually said on the broadcast are ‘misogynist’ and ‘dinosaur’, I have to ask, do you dishonestly misquote people out of habit or are these insertions just indicative of the thoughts going through your mind?

Just so there is no confusion about the source of two of those quotes, here is the full paragraph from the transcript. I found this rebuke to the Jensen douchebagge highly entertaining, italicising the words that ksolway did manage to selectively quote:

I’ve never been married but I’m a very big supporter of same sex marriage because I believe that marriage is a mistake that everyone has the right to make. I have never been married but I would like to congratulate you on your decision to proudly fly the misogynist and medieval colours of your religion and I do support your right to discriminate within your religion. And what I think is great is that you can choose to go to Las Vegas and be married by an Elvis or now you can choose to go to the Anglican Church and be married in a museum by a dinosaur. So that’s great. I congratulate you, well done. And you know what is really interesting is that keep in mind that these days, in Australia, only 30% of marriages actually occur in the Church. Seventy per cent are non religious marriages, let alone the two million people who are de factos. So I think it’s interesting that you guys are going for a niche market there. I mean you guys could have gone for the Gloria Jeans, the corporate rock, the Hillsong, the ‘Be awesome for Jesus’ but you’re going, ‘No. No. Men are in charge because of the mumbo jumbo.’ So congratulations.

Obligatory disclaimer: many thanks Chrys Stevenson for the excellent work on analysing the transcript to establish the word counts.

Thanks for taking up this issue, PZ. Although you did link to Jane Douglas’s (@Jane_Douglas) blog at the end, I’d like to add to that recommendation.

Your recommendation, along with PZ’s prompted me to read Jane’s blog. I’m glad I did. The perspective she offers, as someone who was once a Christian fundamentalist, is incredibly insightful. In closing, Jane says:

And I want to put my hand up as one woman who values your contribution, and who, because of my own experience as a Christian woman, can see Jensen’s game plan for what it was.

I’d like to say thank you to Jane for speaking up and adding her voice to the growing chorus of women AND men who say “FUCK THAT”.

What I presented was what a conversation would have looked like if they were all like Deveny.That is, Deveny would have said “Misogynist”, and the response would have been “Whore”, etc.

Oh, I see. That makes it so much clearer, except you totally failed to indicate that was what you were doing. Next time you want to write a fictional television script, please remember you need to add the names of who’s talking, like ‘DEVENY:’, and ‘JENSEN:’.

Goodbye and good riddance, Freethought blogs and Atheism+.

Do try to stick the flounce: in case you weren’t aware, Pharyngula has a three-comment rule and you’d already reached your allowable quota of asinine stupidity by comment #35.

Assuming you’ll be unwilling to go without a further parting shot: are you the same Kevin Solway who brought back from the dead an eight-month-old thread over on Stephanie Zvan’s blog, where once again (if it was you) you seemed to be quibbling that people’s usage of ‘misogyny’ is at variance with the strict etymological/lexicographical definition. Interested minds, and all that.

I specifically said that that’s what the conversation would have looked like if they were all like Deveny. Is that so hard to understand?

Oh, you’re admitting you are a liar and bullshitter who can’t say anything resembling the truth, as you told a porky for effect? And you can’t stick the flounce. What an abject loser. Try the flounce again. This time stickit.

That is what Jensen himself says. We humans judge people by what they say and what they do. The same way we know you are a dumb troll. Nothing special about the Bishop, he’s just an average hater and moron for jesus, one of tens of millions.

It’s a bit different here in the USA where Anglicans and Episcopalians are considered moderates and sometimes even progressives.

Indeed, this is largely the case in Australia, that elsewhere the Anglican church is often progressive. The Sydney diocese, which has one loathsome Jensen as archbishop and another equally loathsome Jensen (his sibling) as dean of the cathedral, is something of an aberration in being rabidly puritan in its views, and both anti-women and anti-homosexual.

leahdoner @ #19,

Anglicans in Melbourne still cling to the concept that their crazy church is just a social club and they don’t have to believe in a angry god who hates women and gays and non-believers.But every so often the crazy floats in from the Jensen’s Sydney branch and it’s really, really embarrassing.

From what I hear many of the rest of the country’s Anglican dioceses would love to boot the Sydney diocese out, if it weren’t for the fact that that diocese is so richly endowed… which I seem to think is a little bit hypocritical.

Oh dear! How funny to see Kevin Solway surface here. Many of you won’t know Kevin – he and his little mate, David Quinn like to chat together about how women simply don’t have the brain power of people like them … men, that is. http://www.newmenstime.com/index77.html

Here’s a little gem that I found on the internet way back in 2008 when Kevin joined Atheist Nexus:

It’s from David Quinn:

“Kevin Solway and I have had many discussions in the past concerning the pros and cons of discussing philosophy with a woman. The problem is that, unless she is a truly extraordinary specimen, women have no ability to recognize and absorb great truths. So by discussing truth with them one is not only wasting one’s time, but one also runs the risk of feeding their delusions of grandeur that they actually know what they are talking about. On the other hand, it is sometimes useful on a public forum such as this to converse with women every so often simply to highlight the massive differences between masculinity and femininity. ” – comment from here: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Quality%20Posts/Quality04.htm

Kevin seems to have taken down is rather droll misogynistic website but it was certainly good for a laugh back when he first popped his head up from the primordial ooze back in ’08!

I specifically said that that’s what the conversation would have looked like if they were all like Deveny. Is that so hard to understand?

Except that’s not all that Deveny said. There were a *few* other words that she used.
Perhaps if you weren’t such a misogynistic dinosaur you’d understand.
Why don’t you trot on over to The Thunderdome where you can spout your views all you want. You can even use big words, if you know any. You have all the makings of a *delicious* chew toy. So please, stick the flounce in this thread , but go on over to the Thunderdome.

I like Catherine Deveny – even when she’s pissed people off in the past, I have definitely felt that she’s been in the right.

She got PR’d. The bishop intentionally made a relatively reasonable statement at the outset in order to make her look bad. She knew that he was in on the misogynistic submission stuff, and responded accordingly.

I understand ENTIRELY why she said it when the moderator stated some of the archbishop’s prior comments on the subject. She got caught in a PR trap – the archbishop was briefed on her. She’s got to be more careful, and we need to be too. We should have the heavy guns aimed, but just like we shouldn’t have pulled the trigger in Iraq, she didn’t need to pull the trigger on the bishop – she could have dominated him without the inflammatory language.

The chorus here seems to be 80%, “Someone said something rude to someone we don’t like. Yay!”, with the bulk of the remainder being, “Some papers reported unfavourably about someone we like. It must be because she’s a woman.” I wonder how many of the commenters actually watched the episode in question.

As someone who did, I can say that Deveny was simply outclassed. While my sympathies lie with the causes championed by Ms Deveny, I found her to be a poor advocate on this occasion. In particular, she contrasted poorly with Jensen who, despite being smugly condescending, managed to come across as reasonable, professional and polished. Deveny, on the other hand, was crude and ill-mannered. She seems to be struggling to make the transition from commedy to grown-up conversation. Coarse jokes at the expense of religion may go down well at a commedy gig, with a partisan crowd; but in a serious forum, at best it comes across as the class clown acting up at the expense of serious discussion. When seated next to the butt of the joke, it becomes a serious breach of the duty of respect owed not just to fellow panelists, but to the host whose hospitality she is abusing. Despite this rudeness, for the most part she scored only cheap points. By contrast, Anna Krien, while wishy-washy on some matters had some great, calmly spoken but incisive comments, for example on the subject of the role of the church in gay suicides.

As for the question of sexism, if anything it was to Deveny’s favour. Had the genders been reversed, and had a man talked over and thrust his hand in the face of a female guest then much more would have been made of this rudeness.

The way Catherine made her points allowed people to write her off as a “hysterical female”, rather than actually having to consider what she said, while Peter Jensen came across as cool, calm, collected, respectable, in control, and yes, just a little bit smarmy. She should have called him out on his concern trolling rather than calling him a dinosaur.

I’m tired of catering to sexist prejudices.

The less we cater to this illogical bullshit, the less effective the “you’re so hysterical!” attack will be.

The more you cater to it, the more effective the attack becomes.

So stop telling us to try to appear nicer lest we accidentally conform to a negative stereotype. If someone is using negative stereotypes to think about women, then that is THEIR problem. Just like if someone can’t process the idea that President Obama is American, despite having “Hussein” as a middle name, that is indicative of THEIR problem with racist sterotypes, not President Obama’s.

Sorry. I was going to read this article, but then i saw it was calling only Peter Jensen smug.Yes, he may have been,but someone obviously is oblivious to the fact that she laughed in his face when his opinion was contrary to her own and talked over the top of the rest of the panel…

There’s also something in there about him being dead wrong about gender roles and other various things, but don’t worry your pretty little head about it, since obviously reading for comprehension strains your faculties.

They’re not. Some of her arguments weren’t convincing, not because they were disrespectfully comedic but because they simply weren’t thought out well at all, or at least not expressed with any clarity. An excerpt from the transcript:

LIZ HOOPER: With the seeming rise of noisy atheism, I’m wondering, Catherine, how are you sure that there is no God and is there anything that would convince you either to give up on atheism and become an agnostic or a theist or even a Christian?

CATHERINE DEVENY: That’s a really good question.[1] I couldn’t be a Christian because I’m intolerant of intolerance but I don’t think anyone could call themselves a 100% atheist.[2] I believe that there could be a God in the same way that I believe that there could be a Tooth Fairy, a Father Christmas or an Easter Bunny so it’s all – there’s no proof to it but it’s not only…[3]

CHRIS EVANS: So there’s not an Easter Bunny?

CATHERINE DEVENY: I’m sorry. Chris.

CHRIS EVANS: Oh.

CATHERINE DEVENY: For me, I mean, you can took about proof and there’s no proof. I mean one of the things that I always think about is like if God exists why doesn’t he show himself?[4] But when you actually look at the Bible, which is – that’s the only text that I’m – like, religious text that I’m really familiar with, it is basically social engineering embedded in fairytales and horror stories which is just chock full of homophobia, misogyny, discrimination and division and most people haven’t even read it. It has been written by 44 – you know, 60 people, I think, 44 chapters, you know, three different languages over thousands of years, thousands of different interpretations and despite all of those different interpretations, the only thing they can all agree on is homophobia, misogyny, discrimination and division. So, I’m sorry, the way that I see it, it’s just been a very, very handy way to keep people in their place, particularly women, homosexuals and people who don’t believe what they believe.[4]

[1] It isn’t a good question.

[2] A false dichotomy and an apparently false belief. Christianity isn’t the only alternative to atheism, so it shouldn’t be set up that way at all. And people do call themselves “100% atheist,” whatever she thinks that means.

[3] It shouldn’t be construed as a matter of “proof,” but of reasonable beliefs justified by our best understanding of the evidence available to us.

[4] This is just hanging there, amid a rambling stream of rhetoric that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the question asked or anything else. Why not elaborate on it? What is it supposed to entail?

[5] None of that means we shouldn’t believe in the existence of a god or gods. The Bible’s completely irrelevant. The hateful shit in it is a good talking point about why Christianity is bad, but it’s dodging the issue.

Proof that this perception is due to bias is easily found in the link to Chrys Stevenson.

Here’s the word count score card:

Peter Jensen: 2,592 words

Tony Jones (host): 1877 words

Chris Evans: 1,397 words

Catherine Deveny: 1,259 words

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells: 1,242 words

Anna Krien: 775 words

(Anna Krien, interrupted three times by Jones (but not once by Deveny), was effectively sidelined for the evening. She must have been silently fuming at the affront.)

The average number of words spoken by the panellists on Monday night’s Q&A was 1,450 words. Deveny’s contribution of 1,259 words was 13 per cent below the average. Jensen’s, on the other hand, was 78 per cent above the average. Please stop a moment and let that sink in.

Y’know, it sure is curious that paulrobertson @61 has nothing to say about the shit Jensen was spewing. The focus seems to be on the way Catherine spoke, or carried herself, or conducted herself. The only thing mentioned about Jensen is how he’s ‘smugly condescending’. No mention of his vile sexist views. No mention of the homophobic bile he spewed. No mention of his anti-family values. I wonder what paulrobertson has to say about Jensen. I wonder why there’s no mention of how despicable it is to couch hateful rhetoric behind nice words and a professional attitude.

The less we cater to this illogical bullshit, the less effective the “you’re so hysterical!” attack will be.

The more you cater to it, the more effective the attack becomes.

So stop telling us to try to appear nicer lest we accidentally conform to a negative stereotype. If someone is using negative stereotypes to think about women, then that is THEIR problem. Just like if someone can’t process the idea that President Obama is American, despite having “Hussein” as a middle name, that is indicative of THEIR problem with racist sterotypes, not President Obama’s.

Have you actually watched the episode through? As paulrobertson said, Deveny was outclassed. I used the term “hysterical female” because that was the term I could see coming to the minds of the public at large. However, I could just as easily have said “angry ranting atheist”. If a man had said what Devney said, in the same way, then I would still have considered him to have lost the exchange, despite being right. It’s not about catering to illogical bullshit, it’s about presenting the argument in such a way that it has to be addressed, rather than presenting an easy way for it to be dismissed.

Be angry. Don’t be nice. Anger, properly harnessed, can help get your message across. However, Devney’s message was lost, such that I, who totally agreed with her, felt that Jensen won the argument. If I felt that way, I’m pretty sure that my grandmother, and the multitude of people who are already on Jensen’s side, had little reason to reconsider their opinions.

Sorry. I was going to read this article, but then i saw it was calling only Peter Jensen smug.Yes, he may have been,but someone obviously is oblivious to the fact that she laughed in his face when his opinion was contrary to her own and talked over the top of the rest of the panel…

Ok, fine, for the sake of argument, let’s say that Catherine was smug as well.
Happy?
Now what?
Are you ready to condemn Jensen now? Are you ready to stop talking about how Catherine came across and discuss Jensen’s dehumanizing contrary opinion?

Comedy need not be incompatible with grown-up conversation, but it often is. And it was for Catherine Deveny on this occasion. Her humour consisted of wise-cracks which, for the most part, were essentially ad hominem attacks with only tangential relevance to the conversation.

Tony @68:

Y’know, it sure is curious that paulrobertson @61 has nothing to say about the shit Jensen was spewing. The focus seems to be on the way Catherine spoke, or carried herself, or conducted herself.

I’m sorry. I was responding to the main post, which was applauding Deveny and decrying the criticism she has received for her rudeness. For the record, Jensen was wrong. About everything. And his false concern was sickening. Happy?

Tethys@67:

talked over the top of the rest of the panel…

Proof that this perception is due to bias is easily found in the link to Chrys Stevenson.

Nonsense. “Talking over” has nothing to do with word count. Deveny interrupted the other panelists on multiple occasions. That’s a fact that your “stats” do nothing to disprove.

I’m sorry when someone starts with his positions how the fuck do you lose against him?

By not presenting your arguments in a way that convinces the people who actually matter, namely, the people who do not currently agree with your position.

I repeat, for the sake of clarity, that I think that Jensen was utterly wrong, and his views are vile. Unfortunately however, whether one is right or wrong often has very little to do with how many people one can persuade.

Let’s look at the some of what Peter Jensen has to say now that we’re done worrying about how rude or smug Catherine Deveny is:

It needs to be observed that he has been somewhat quoted out of context in some reports. I’m not sure about that one but in some reports he’s been somewhat quoted out of context. But what he has done for us, rightly or wrongly, what he has done is given us an opportunity to talk about something significant, namely the question of health risks. Now, I think it is true to say – I think it is true to say – it’s very hard to get all the facts here because we don’t want to talk about it and in this country censorship is alive and well, believe me. So what I’m about to say, I don’t want to say because I know I’m going to be hit over the head for the next 100 years about it so – and it’s a virulent censorship. Now, I will still go ahead. What I want to say is that as far as I can see by trying to get to the facts, the lifespan of practising gays is significantly shorter than the ordinary, so called, heterosexual man. I think that seems to be the case. Now what we need to do is to look at why this may be the case and we need to do it in a compassionate and objective way. Some people say it’s because of the things I say and the position I take and that creates, for example, a spate of suicides. That may be true but how can we get at the facts if we’re never willing to talk about it? Now, there may be other things as well.

Here we have a man in a position of some degree of power saying that gay men have shorter lifespans than straight men. Based on what? Where is his evidence? Why would he say something so incendiary without at least some support for it?

Well a 15 year old sorry, I need to be careful here. We don’t want to talk about this particular young man with his courage. But clearly a teenager is going through a period in their lives, exciting as it is, in which they’re seeking to find themselves. A person who feels in themselves same-sex attraction and I might add, a lot of such folk have talked to me over the years, is seeking, I think, to find themselves, to find an identity and in our sort of society, with its emphasis on sexual activity as an identity finding activity, there is therefore the opportunity to think that that is the way to do things and yet here you have this frowned upon same-sex feeling.

Lovely.
Many teens dealing with same sex attractions are looking for more than an ’emphasis on sexual activity’. His focus here on sexual desires minimizes the fact that many gay men and women are dealing with far more than sexual attraction.
This is the same fucking problem I had with my father when I came out to my parents. He reduced everything I was going through to sex. He treated the complex emotions I was going through as if it was just butt sex.
Do you know how this makes a teen feel? It dehumanizes them. That is dangerous. Just typing all that brought back the memories of coming out. So I know full well the complex emotions running through the heads of a teenager who hears shit like this coming from Peter Jensen.
I also love the fact that we have so many people rushing in here to condemn Catherine Deveny for how she comported herself but they have no condemnation to give for that pusbag Peter Jensen. I do have to thank the scumbags speaking up about Catherine’s “attitude”. Now we know that you’re not allies. We know that fighting for equal rights for queers are not high on your list of things worth speaking up about.
Thanks for identifying yourselves.*

Now kindly fuck off.

*In case anyone is unclear, if you’re here worrying about how Catherine’s TONE was just so awful, as if that’s the most important thing to talk about in the Q&A, I’m talking about YOU.

For those people who think Catherine Deveny “drowned out” anyone
(before I go further, I forgot to include the link for the portions of the transcript I quoted in my last post. Here it is:http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3581623.htm) :

So, what about interruptions? Did Deveny really ruin the program by rudely talking over everyone? I checked. The answer is, “No, she didn’t.”

In examining the transcript, I considered an ‘interruption’ as any interjection which stopped the previous speaker from completing their sentence (usually marked by ellipses in the transcript). In some cases, Jones interrupts by his own admission, “I’m sorry to interrupt you, but …” and I counted these as well.

Here’s the interruption score card:

Archbishop Jensen (supposedly the most polite panellist) interrupted the host three times. He also interrupted Deveny once. Jensen scores four interruptions.

Deveny was far more ‘submissive’ to Jones’s authority than the Archbishop; she interrupted the Q&A host only once. In addition, Deveny interrupted Jensen twice and Evans once, making her ‘interruption quotient’ exactly the same as Jensen’s.
[…]
So, maybe it was just because Deveny was so damn shouty and loud that everyone thought she was taking over the program, eh?

Nope.

I asked a professional sound engineer to listen to the audio of the program to ascertain whether Deveny’s voice was routinely raised above the volume of the other guests.

His response, after examining the audio, was to say that, as he expected, Q&A’s audio director ensures the sound is compressed and filtered so that all voices come through at a consistent level ‘within tolerances below which pretty much any normal person could detect.’

In other words, even if Deveny had been shouting (and there is no evidence that she was), there is no way a viewer could tell that from watching the program online or on television.

The sound technician explained:

“All radio and TV audio is heavily processed in the desk in the first place and then again via a finalizer before being broadcast – there’s very little variance in volume. With what was broadcast, there’s no way for a non-physical audience member to prove Catherine Deveny shouted or even noticeably raised her voice.”

So, did Deveny yell, shout or raise her voice on Q&A? Certainly not so as any armchair critic could notice. If they thought she was ‘shouting’ it was because of their own biases, not because the volume increased when Deveny spoke.

Tony@78: Yes, Jensen was wrong, hideously so. That makes it all the more important that he has credible opposition. And that simply wasn’t Deveny, so much so that she got negative press for her rudeness. Which was the subject of the original post; you know, the thing that these comments are supposed to be referring to. “Priest says homophobic/sexist thing” stories are unfortunately all too monotonous in their regularity and such dog-bites-man stories therefore do not make for particularly interesting discussion. If that conversation floats your boat, then more power to you. But I humbly suggest that coming to a post discussing criticism of an outspoken atheist and telling everyone who is discussing the atheist and not the priest to GTFO shows more than a touch of chutzpah.

Xanthe – while you are right that there are lots of Anglicans in Australia who are moderates, its not only the Sydney diocese which has extremely conservative views. There is definitely a splinter movement within the Anglican communion. I was not brought up in an Anglican family but I went to an Anglican school (not in NSW) for my schooling which was very much along the Peter Jensen line. It was highly conservative in rules of dress (including on casual clothes day, we were forbidden from wearing clothing that came above the knee or any top which didn’t have sleeves. When I was fairly new to the school I didn’t know this and wore a sleeveless top (not spaghetti straps as it covered from my neck to the edge of my shoulder and not remotely low cut) and I was forced to wear a jumper all day throughout summer). It also had a very conservative view point we were told that homosexuality was wrong, in fact even two friends appearing to be too close could be punished (as we were conservative girls it was very difficult to find ‘dates’ for the year 12 formal, most girls were matched up with friend’s brothers or cousins or family friends but inevitably some girls couldn’t find anyone, in my year level two girls who were both straight wanted to go together as friends so they would sit together etc and the school forbade them to even come after such an outrageous suggestion). There were also conservation views on the role of women, politics etc. I’m not saying that these groups are the majority (I suspect that they aren’t the majority but are a not insignificant minority) merely that they do exist outside Sydney and that Jensen is a major rallying point for conservative Anglicans in Australia.

In examining the transcript, I considered an ‘interruption’ as any interjection which stopped the previous speaker from completing their sentence (usually marked by ellipses in the transcript). In some cases, Jones interrupts by his own admission, “I’m sorry to interrupt you, but …” and I counted these as well.

A good attempt, but flawed. The transcript simply doesn’t pick up a great many of Deveny’s interjections, particularly those where she simply talks over the top while the panelist with the floor continues talking. I don’t have the time or inclination to watch the entire episode again, but after some quick shuffling I present two examples that were not captured in the transcript: @12:24 and @31:14.

But I humbly suggest that coming to a post discussing criticism of an outspoken atheist and telling everyone who is discussing the atheist and not the priest to GTFO shows more than a touch of chutzpah.

The criticism of the outspoken atheist in question is centering on matters of tone, rather than *what* she says.

*That* is the argument worth having?

Catherine’s tone is in question, but not the hate filled priest?

So many examples can be found at Pharyngula and various other blogs here at FtB showcasing people worrying about tone, instead of focusing on the content of what someone is saying. It creates a distraction from what *should* be discussed, by telling people to stop cursing, or respect religion, or use the right words, or stop being so strident, or stop being so shrill.
Sorry, but you’ve failed to convince me why Catherine should have adopted your policy on how to engage someone.
On top of that, as Chrys Stevenson so expertly broke down

Catherine Deveny did nothing wrong.

She did nothing more than stand up to a passive-aggressive religious bully who consistently abuses his elevated position in society to impose his religious views on others, argue against equal rights for his fellow Australians, support the status quo and disseminate shameful propaganda which does real harm to real people.

or now you can choose to go to the Anglican Church and be married in a museum by a dinosaur.

Great quote. I totally misheard it first time. In the UK, you can now get married in the Natural History Museum in London, by (in the sense of ‘next to’) a dinosaur. So I got the wrong end of the stick when I heard that phrase. Works both ways…

Does this mean you dispute Chrys Stevenson’s count of Catherine interrupting/interjecting only 4 times

Yes. I thought I made that clear.

I note that you ignored my reply.

You also prefer to ignore the facts in favor of your opinion.
I’ve watched again just to check your assertion and counted both interruptions (4), and interjections (2).

The interjections were both short one-liners that got laughs.
They in no way prevented anyone from speaking. I expect that the TV producers actually pay her to be a comedian, so I don’t see what your problem is with her making jokes.

If you continue to assert your opinion as fact, you are lying, and I do believe you are past the three post rule.

Your comment @84 where you referred me to the article that you failed to link? Yes, I ignored it, because I’d already addressed that article in my reply to Tony @83.

You also prefer to ignore the facts in favor of your opinion.
I’ve watched again just to check your assertion and counted both interruptions (4), and interjections (2).

Well, already by your admission we’re 50% over Chrys’ original figure of four. Here’s one more for you @54:09 to 54:19. And I haven’t even gone to the trouble of rewatching in entirity as you claim to have done.

The interjections were both short one-liners that got laughs.

My second example in my comment above @31:14 lasted for 8 seconds, eventually cut off Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and couldn’t be classified either as short or a one-liner.

If you continue to assert your opinion as fact, you are lying, and I do believe you are past the three post rule.

You’ve just admitted that Chrys’ numbers were wrong, even with your low-ball count. How am I incorrect?

Gotta like how those critical of CD don’t really have valid points on substance, only pretend to have. All tone. Nothing of substance, and never talk about sexism and condemnation thereof. Must be a fatal flaw in those trying to keep patriarchy and male privilege in place.

Well, already by your admission we’re 50% over Chrys’ original figure of four. Here’s one more for you @54:09 to 54:19. And I haven’t even gone to the trouble of rewatching in entirity as you claim to have done.

Are you hard of thinking? I confirmed Chrys Stevenson’s count of 4 interruptions. Adding a comment when someone has finished speaking is by definition not interrupting. PZ helpfully linked to the post above, so I do hope you aren’t so lazy that you can’t scroll up and click.

So far you have asserted three lies.
That she talked over the panel. false
She interrupted excessively. false
She interrupted and interjected excessively. false

So far you have asserted three lies.
That she talked over the panel. false
She interrupted excessively. false
She interrupted and interjected excessively. false

Regarding the first “lie”, I’ve provided timestamps to back my claim. Take 31:14 for instance. As for the others, I won’t trouble myself by responding further as if you can’t even acknowledge video evidence of a matter of fact, I don’t have high hopes of convincing you of a qualitative point.

One way MRAs who don’t want get caught out looking like sexists jackasses is to complain about tone, instead of concentrating on substance. PR, you have destructive criticism focused on tone and demeanor, not the substance. Its not even constructive, in that this is how you make this point better while still ridiculing the fuckwits. So, where are your sympathies toward treating women as equals to men in all aspects of life?

I watched that episode of Q&A, and although I agreed with pretty much everything Deveny said, I did find her extremely frustrating to listen to. I think what I found frustrating was that she would often side-step the subtleties of what was being said, and cut straight to a one-line answer to every kind of complex problem. (Not I’m speaking specifically about any of the issues Jensen brought up. I’m speaking about the show as a whole.)

Although I agreed with her one-line answers, I did think it was very disrespectful to the other people who were not yet convinced, or who were simply trying to flesh-out the complexities of what was being discussed. I found Deveny to be condescending and arrogant. She speaks as though anyone who disagrees with her must be stupid or ignorant; and she speaks only in broad strokes – never addressing the subtleties of what others are talking about.

For example, when talking about Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers, Deveny spoke about the near-zero risk of any of the asylum seekers being terrorists, and so on – but the fact is that no one on the panel was suggesting that they were a risk. The core of debate was about best to stop people drowning at sea, and she completely side-stepped that issue and put up a ‘terrorist risk’ straw man to knock down.

So again, let me just say that although I agreed with Catherine Deveny’s views on Q&A, I also agree with those who criticized her for who showing respect.

Oh dear, this drives some of the more boring trolls out of ther holes, doesn’t it?
It’s clear that the only behaviour the religiously deluded would have accepted is a “Yes, Mr. bishop, sir, I’m sorry Mr. Bishop, sir”, at which point out atheist tone trolls would have told her that she was not determined enough and that atheists need to be represented by somebody more assertive and passionate, i.e. a guy.

ksolway

I don’t think it’s at all certain that the bishop “hates women”.

He might have wrong ideas about what various people[1] ought to be doing[2], but that’s not misogyny.

No, sure you’re right. He only thinks that we need our husbands to be our bosses because obviously we’re not able to make sensible decissions ourselves or even be better at it at times than our men.
Sheesh, how stupid of us to think that this qualifies as “misogyny”

[1]women
[2] obey their husbands and submit to them

Yes, I’m aware of that. What I presented was what a conversation would have looked like if they were all like Deveny.

Wrong.
You’re a liar.
If everybody was like her, well the discussion wouldn’t occur at all because, duh, we wouldn’t need to call people out on misogynist shit and we wouldn’t have to fight for gay marriage.
But I notice that these two words occured in a a longish and pretty eloquent section (meh, I’d love to be able to rock that even in written, let alone verbally). With an actual argument. but you seem to be unable to hear everything except two words that hurt your fee-fees.

Goodbye and good riddance, Freethought blogs and Atheism+

Yes, that was the point behind the whole thing. Hope you stick the flounce

I specifically said that that’s what the conversation would have looked like if they were all like Deveny. Is that so hard to understand?

Damn, I’m already disappointed
Yes, we understand. You’re just making the shit up because there’s absolutely no evidence for this and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, because we know what a conversation looks like if one person is like her, i.e. herself. And that looks nothing like the imaginary conversation you’re having.

How do you know? Psychic powers perhaps?

Ears.
Brain.
Education.
Experience.
People who say that women should obey men hate it when they don’t, else they wouldn’t say so.

thecheekytakahe

We should have the heavy guns aimed, but just like we shouldn’t have pulled the trigger in Iraq, she didn’t need to pull the trigger on the bishop – she could have dominated him without the inflammatory language.

Yes.
No.
When are people like you going to understand that any language will be considered inflamatory when talking about religion (or misogyny, for that matter)?

paulrobertson

The chorus here seems to be 80%, “Someone said something rude to someone we don’t like. Yay!”, with the bulk of the remainder being, “Some papers reported unfavourably about someone we like. It must be because she’s a woman.” I wonder how many of the commenters actually watched the episode in question.

Your comprehension seems to be 80% inability to process language combined with 20% of making sit up plus and extra heap of making wild speculations.

In particular, she contrasted poorly with Jensen who, despite being smugly condescending, managed to come across as reasonable, professional and polished.

Yeah, and idiots like you fall for the tone instead of the argument.

Deveny, on the other hand, was crude and ill-mannered.

Yeah, she opened her mouth when men wanted to speak. Oh, and she said the truth.

She seems to be struggling to make the transition from commedy to grown-up conversation.

Yeah, just like children… Sure, when Hitchens did that it was brilliant…

When seated next to the butt of the joke, it becomes a serious breach of the duty of respect owed not just to fellow panelists, but to the host whose hospitality she is abusing.

The butt of the joke is a homophobic misgynist liar. The host seemed to be fine with her.

As for the question of sexism, if anything it was to Deveny’s favour. Had the genders been reversed, and had a man talked over and thrust his hand in the face of a female guest then much more would have been made of this rudeness.

Wrong. Assholes like you would have aplauded him for his brave and passionate presentation. Gheez, men talking over women is waht happens all the time. Did you read the OP? Being only 40% of the panelists, men still talked 55% of the time…

Her humour consisted of wise-cracks which, for the most part, were essentially ad hominem attacks with only tangential relevance to the conversation.

Learn what an ad hominem is, come back then.

Deveny did a lot of talking over people.

Since she didn’t even do “a lot of talking”, we can simply dismiss that. Also, since the whole thing was already unfairly skewed towards the bishop, what’s your solution: Women, shut the fuck up and let the nice bishop tell you how you’re hardly more than a dog who needs a master and that gays are just filthy?
Yes, you’d rather have that. Because that’s going to convince anybody.

lukehood

Sorry. I was going to read this article, but then i saw it was calling only Peter Jensen smug.Yes, he may have been,but someone obviously is oblivious to the fact that she laughed in his face when his opinion was contrary to her own and talked over the top of the rest of the panel…

1) she laughed in his face when his opinion was ridiculous. Good! Stop showing respect for ridiculous ideas just because it#s religion.
2) See above: the men actually dominated the panel…

fronkey

The way Catherine made her points allowed people to write her off as a “hysterical female”, rather than actually having to consider what she said, while Peter Jensen came across as cool, calm, collected, respectable, in control, and yes, just a little bit smarmy.

See above. Sure, if Richard Dawkins had done that, it would have been brave and laudable. With her, it was just hysterical. Misogyny at it’s most sophisticated.

Have you actually watched the episode through?

Yes.

I used the term “hysterical female” because that was the term I could see coming to the minds of the public at large.

Supported by you. Because if you weren’t supporting the idea and stereotype you’d be out with us fighting it instead of chastizing women for being audible and visible.

If a man had said what Devney said, in the same way, then I would still have considered him to have lost the exchange, despite being right.

I doubt it. And I have evidence. Because we know how people lauded Hitchens.

Be angry. Don’t be nice. Anger, properly harnessed, can help get your message across.

No, the harnessed anger you talk about is indistinguishable from the niceness. And it got us nowhere.

If I felt that way, I’m pretty sure that my grandmother, and the multitude of people who are already on Jensen’s side, had little reason to reconsider their opinions.

Sure, had she just been a little nicer and shown proper respect and acted as if Jensen weren’t a despicable human being but somebody with a legitimate point your grandma would have become an atheist. Yes, that’s totally a reasonable expectation.

karadoc

Although I agreed with her one-line answers, I did think it was very disrespectful to the other people who were not yet convinced, or who were simply trying to flesh-out the complexities of what was being discussed.

So, how disrespectful did you find the bishop’s bullshit about gay men being a public health issue and wifes having to submit to their husbands?

She speaks as though anyone who disagrees with her must be stupid or ignorant;

For all those claiming that Deveny should be less loud or rude, and interrupt less. Please note what happened to the female guest who followed all the polite rules – she barely got to speak at all. Them’s the rules for “polite speech” if you’re female, or nearly any other person of lesser privilege. You must wait until it is your turn to speak, or you are rude. When is it your turn to speak? Why after everyone else is done, of course. When will everyone else be done? Never. Sorry!

You can either be rude, or not be heard at all. I figured that out at age six or so, when I realized that if I was in a conversation with adults, I was flat not allowed to speak without being considered rude for interrupting. It didn’t matter if I had something to say. It didn’t matter if I was right. Indeed, if I was right and the adult was wrong was the very rudest time of all for me to speak. I couldn’t wait to grow up so that I could have my turn to speak. Only to discover that since I was a woman, there were lots of places where the exact same rules applied.

For an entertaining turn around, I went to a women’s college. My college allowed dual enrollment with a local technical institute, so there were occasionally guys in our classes. The guys were treated like any other student – which meant they didn’t get to interrupt or dominate. Surprising numbers of the guys simply could not handle this, and would drop out of class within a week or so.

I’m watching the video of the show now and, ugh, Jensen is infuriating. Does he ever give an actual answer to a question without first giving a paragraph about how he is so glad the person asked this question and there are many important conversations to be had here and he’s just trying to have a reasonable, polite debate and so on, ad nauseum. He is every stereotype of “civility” elevated above humanity and useful discourse; a walking manual on how to exploit cultural biases about whose opinions are legitimate. And it seems like people fell for his act? Ugh.

And that’s without getting into his actual opinions and policies on LGBT people and the submission of women.

For all those claiming that Deveny should be less loud or rude, and interrupt less.

That doesn’t matter to them.
No, they’re more concerned with Catherine Deveny’s tone that the substance of what she said. Many of those whining about Deveny focus almost entirely on her, with little criticism of Jensen. It’s not until someone mentions “Hey, that Jensen dude is a damn piece of shit who belongs to a religion that’s used to people according it unnecessary and undeserved levels of respect.” Then a few of them call him out-as an afterthought. They then go right back to whining about how Deveny should have done this or that better-as if her delivery should be focused on. As if that is not a hallmark of dismissing women’s concerns. Sexism in action.

You would have to make a valid point first. You have done nothing but complain about tone.

Nerd of Redhead @95:

PR, you have destructive criticism focused on tone and demeanor, not the substance.

Giliell@97:

…tone…

And why should Deveny be exempt from such criticism? Because she is on our side? Or because she’s a woman? I maintain that when the core topic of the OP is whether criticism of Deveny’s tone was valid, then discussion of her tone in comments is to be expected.

Giliell@97:

She seems to be struggling to make the transition from commedy to grown-up conversation.

Yeah, just like children… Sure, when Hitchens did that it was brilliant…

Firstly, there was plenty that Hitchens said that garnered criticism from atheists, myself included. Secondly, as I said above, sometimes humour works in a serious setting, sometimes it doesn’t. Citing someone who has enjoyed a measure of success in fusing humour with serious debate doesn’t rebut my claim that Deveny failed at the same endeavour.

Also, since the whole thing was already unfairly skewed towards the bishop, what’s your solution: Women, shut the fuck up and let the nice bishop tell you how you’re hardly more than a dog who needs a master and that gays are just filthy?

You’re painting a false dilema. Those aren’t the only options. It’s possible to participate in debate without being rude. If Deveny had chosen that third path then she would not only have avoided the criticism that she’s received, but she would have been even more persuasive.

And why should Deveny be exempt from such criticism? Because she is on our side? Or because she’s a woman? I maintain that when the core topic of the OP is whether criticism of Deveny’s tone was valid, then discussion of her tone in comments is to be expected.

No one is saying she is exempt. The point is it does not matter.
Did you miss the gist of PZ’s post? You keep obsessing with how she says something. You’re not paying attention to what *IS* important: *what* she’s saying. Not how she’s saying it.
Here, in case you’ve forgotten what PZ’s post was about-which is not “Catherine Deveny said things in a way that she should not have”-

from PZ:

But this attention that the public pays to mouthy women (even when she clearly gave everyone else a chance to speak their piece) ought to be recognized for what it is: being nice is a tool of the status quo; complaining about tone is an attempt to silence the passion and outrage of the oppressed; privilege perpetuates itself by labeling difference as deviancy.

What you’re doing is exactly what he’s talking about. You want Deveny to say things in a manner you approve of.
That’s a tool of the status quo.
You complain about her tone, which has the effect of silencing the passion and outrage of the oppressed.
Your focus on Catherine Deveny’s tone is at the expense of condemning Peter Jensen. Jensen gets overlooked because his ‘tone’ is judged to be ok. Yes, as an afterthought you condemned him. But your first and primary focus has been, and continues to be the tone of Catherine Deveny. You’re helping to perpetuate the privilege that people like Peter Bishop enjoy, which has the result of making their views seem civilized and decent. They are not. Peter Jensen is not civilized. He is not decent. He should be the focus of your criticism.

It’s clear that the only behaviour the religiously deluded would have accepted is a “Yes, Mr. bishop, sir, I’m sorry Mr. Bishop, sir”, at which point out atheist tone trolls would have told her that she was not determined enough and that atheists need to be represented by somebody more assertive and passionate, i.e. a guy

Of course that’s what I was saying…

I think many women could have done a better job at tackling Jensen, and actually helped expose his vileness instead of making him seem the reasonable one. Coincidentally, this can be done without being a doormat. A couple of past Q&A panellists who come to mind are Germaine Greer and Fiona Patten.

You’re painting a false dilema. Those aren’t the only options. It’s possible to participate in debate without being rude

Oh my, not rudeness! You can be as condescending as you want, you can defend all manner of vile things, you can affirm with a straight face that large swaths of humanity are less than human… but being confrontational destroys the debate!

I maintain that when the core topic of the OP is whether criticism of Deveny’s tone was valid

Nope, the conclusion was that it was valid and maybe a little soft. When someone talks tone and states a winner based on tone, they are tone trolling in a fashion. You are tone trolling. That isn’t welcome here, as it doesn’t address substance, just how something is said. Why you should even go there, unless you basically agree with the religious folks, makes me wonder about your other claims. Are you just a concern troll, for example.

So, how disrespectful did you find the bishop’s bullshit about gay men being a public health issue and wifes having to submit to their husbands?Well, I wasn’t going to talk about Jenson at all, because he isn’t relevant to what I was saying about Deveny – but since you asked me directly I’ll tell you what I thought: I’ve rarely heard someone put forward such a ridiculous position in such a reasonable and respectful way. Jenson was a model of good manners. He’s position is essentially indefensible. It’s a position built explicitly on out-dated and offensive gender stereotypes; but yet somehow he was able to express this absurd position in a polite and respectful way. He did not use ad hominem attacks, and he did not claim that he knew better than anyone else expressing their views. He simply stated what he believed, and why he believed it. He answered the questions he was asked. He didn’t get aggressive or defensive.

Deveny had the distinct advantage of being right, and yet somehow she squandered it. The questions from the audience directed at Jenson were probing attacks on his views; and he was able to respond to them clearly and gracefully. Deveny could have poked holes in his responses to reveal the flaws. It was not have been hard, because there were many flaws in what Jenson was saying, but instead she just threw around some vaguely related sloganistic soundbites.

Jenson’s argued in a calm and logical manner, whereas Deveny argued with slogans and name-calling. (Again, let me emphasize that although Jenson argued logically, his premises were seriously flawed. His views could only make any kind of sense from an extremely narrow reference point.)

So, Giliell, I hope that answers your question. The tl;dr version is this: Jenson’s views may be intrinsically disrespectful, but on that particular TV show he was able to express those views more respectfully than Deveny expressed her (far more reasonable) views.

It’s a position built explicitly on out-dated and offensive gender stereotypes; but yet somehow he was able to express this absurd position in a polite and respectful way. He did not use ad hominem attacks, and he did not claim that he knew better than anyone else expressing their views.

Do you have any idea what you’re saying? You’re seriously, literally fetishising the arbitrary word choices and manner he uses to deliver monstrous statements. Why? Seriously-why? That is so beyond fucked up. Why is the arbitrary linguistic ritual of such paramount importance? I’m honestly flummoxed.

Is there any statement that would offend you enough not to praise the speaker’s etiquette? If so, what is it?

Do you understand that anti-gay bigotry is inherently not polite and respectful?

@Josh, I didn’t come here to praise the guy’s etiquette. I was asked directly about whether or not I thought he was polite. I thought I made it pretty clear that I do think his views are monstrous, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t polite.

Did you watch the show? He apparently think of homosexuality as a kind of disability which should be worked around… This is an dreadful and very damaging view-point, but from that unstable starting block he pitches himself forward as being compassionate towards gay people, and offers to help them through their troubles and so on. I’m sure no one who doesn’t already agree with him would ever want his brand of ‘help’; but never-the-less it is his core beliefs that are at fault – not his manners.

I just happen to be of the old-fashioned option that it is better to attack the ideas than to attack the person who holds those ideas.

@vaiyt, Jenson did not say women were worth less than men. In fact he emphasized several times that he thought them to be equal. He was advocating for very concrete gender-roles, but he described those roles as having equal value.

@consciousness razor, look, I appreciate that if claim logical was used then the burden of proof is on me to give examples of it – but frankly, I don’t really want to, because I don’t want to get suckered into trying to defend Jenson any more than I already have. I think he’s a creep. I don’t agree with anything he says. I don’t like anything he says. I don’t want anything to do with him. But I do think he was more polite than Deveny on this TV show.

The only reason I’m posting in this thread is to argue that although Deveny has the right views, she expressed them poorly. People keep saying ‘What about Jenson. His views are monstrous! Surely Deveny did better than him!‘, but I don’t really think Jenson has anything to do with it. Jenson’s views are monstrous, but that doesn’t mean Deveny was clear, or articulate, or respectful.

One thing that goes completely unmentioned in this thread is that there was another women on the panel who also expressed her disagreement with Jenson, and who got no negative press at all.

look, I appreciate that if claim logical was used then the burden of proof is on me to give examples of it – but frankly, I don’t really want to, because I don’t want to get suckered into trying to defend Jenson any more than I already have.

Alright, but you can’t have it both ways.

But I do think he was more polite than Deveny on this TV show.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

The only reason I’m posting in this thread is to argue that although Deveny has the right views, she expressed them poorly. People keep saying ‘What about Jenson. His views are monstrous! Surely Deveny did better than him!‘, but I don’t really think Jenson has anything to do with it. Jenson’s views are monstrous, but that doesn’t mean Deveny was clear, or articulate, or respectful.

I agree that she didn’t do very well. In fact, just going by what she said, she doesn’t have “the right views.” But I’m actually going by what she said and how she said it, not irrelevant shit like how fucking polite or respectful she was to someone whose views are utterly monstrous (and illogical, in case you want to slide that one in again later on).

I just happen to be of the old-fashioned option that it is better to attack the ideas than to attack the person who holds those ideas.

You’re right that it’s old-fashioned. It’s also ethically blinkered. It is elevating form over substance and in so doing privileging oppressive speech over disruptive speech.

There comes a point where it’s futile and silly to distinguish between the “person” and the “ideas.” I don’t care what “kind of a person” one wants to think of one’s self, in one’s heart of hearts. I care what a person does. And when a Jensen says the most heinous, degrading, dehumanizing things about women and gays, I am not obliged to bow and shuffle to say, “I realize you didn’t mean it to sound this way, sir, but please consider that, although you’re a very fine man, what you’re saying is harmful.”

And stop right now—you’re about to write, “I never said you should bow and scrape. But. . ”

There is no ‘but’. Examine your reflexive reaction to rude and disruptive speech. Question why you hold to it so dearly. Ask yourself what values you honestly cherish.

One thing that goes completely unmentioned in this thread is that there was another women on the panel who also expressed her disagreement with Jenson, and who got no negative press at all.

1. Maybe because she tamely “expressed” her “disagreement?”

2. Why do you think “negative press” is an own goal?

3. Do you not understand that those who play within the discursive rules are always (but only) rewarded with forbearance and get ignored?

4. What the hell upsets you so much about someone righteously mouthing off? Why the fuck do you think tepid, “I respectfully disagree, and I don’t mean to cause offense, but. . ” is a goal to strive for? Why do you think that’s a “win?”

I think you should seriously consider refraining from this discussion because you are simply not as smart as others here are.

Nice.

I seriously am baffled how people expect me to buy the idea that someone basically saying I’m less than human is polite.
The guy never said that. His position was that gay sex is a sin; which is a poor position to have, but it is certainly not the same as saying gay people are less than human. But hey, maybe you should tell me again how stupid I am. If you say it enough, perhaps we’ll be lucky enough to get a homogeneous society where dissenters like me don’t dare venture. Perhaps you’ve got some more ad hominem attacks to get rid of people you disagree with? Show me how smart you are.

The guy never said that. His position was that gay sex is a sin; which is a poor position to have, but it is certainly not the same as saying gay people are less than human. But hey, maybe you should tell me again how stupid I am. If you say it enough, perhaps we’ll be lucky enough to get a homogeneous society where dissenters like me don’t dare venture. Perhaps you’ve got some more ad hominem attacks to get rid of people you disagree with? Show me how smart you are.

I didn’t say you were stupid. I just said you weren’t as smart as others. I didn’t mean any offense. It’s just my honest assessment. I sincerely apologize if you misread me in such a way.

The guy never said that. His position was that gay sex is a sin; which is a poor position to have, but it is certainly not the same as saying gay people are less than human. But hey, maybe you should tell me again how stupid I am. If you say it enough, perhaps we’ll be lucky enough to get a homogeneous society where dissenters like me don’t dare venture. Perhaps you’ve got some more ad hominem attacks to get rid of people you disagree with? Show me how smart you are.

For fuck’s sake, he wants to treat gays as less than human (you know, not like straight people who have rights and shit). Whether he came out and fucking said that explicitly only matters to gullible/dishonest tone-trolling lackwits like you.

You know what? Suck it karadoc. And fuck off and die. You’re no ally; you’re an apologist. Get the hell out of here.

Apologist my arse. I said in every damn post I made that I was against what this Jenson clown was saying. Is it so hard to draw a distinction between offensive ideas and offensive expression of those ideas?

Apologist my arse. I said in every damn post I made that I was against what this Jenson clown was saying. Is it so hard to draw a distinction between offensive ideas and offensive expression of those ideas?

This thread feels like a lynch team.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but you need to calm down. You’re acting just as bad as they are right now.

I mean seriously? Lynch mob. I know you think these people are rude but don’t you think you should be above this? Just as bad as them really. This is why I question your ability to follow such a discusion, you don’t seem able to follow you own advice and keep a civil tone when challenged. You’re making yourself look very bad and it’s embarassing to yourself. I mean do you really sugest that the thread looks like this?.

I know I’d be more inclined to consider karadoc’s view if xe would moderate his tone. As it stands I feel xe’s too aggressive and that makes me doubt xe’s position. If you have something to say, say it civilly.

The guy never said that. His position was that gay sex is a sin; which is a poor position to have, but it is certainly not the same as saying gay people are less than human. But hey, maybe you should tell me again how stupid I am. If you say it enough, perhaps we’ll be lucky enough to get a homogeneous society where dissenters like me don’t dare venture. Perhaps you’ve got some more ad hominem attacks to get rid of people you disagree with? Show me how smart you are.

Did you even read what I wrote @78?

The shit the man says is dehumanizing to gay teens (and gay PEOPLE for that matter). I’m sitting here *telling* you exactly how it makes me feel and you have the unmitigated gall to fucking tell me (and any other gay people here AND any individual who sympathizes with gay people) that this *does’t* mean he’s saying gay people are less than human?

What, do you think he needs to come right out and say “Hey Catherine, gay people are less than human” ? Seriously, the way he treats gay people…the vile things he says…he demonstrates that he does NOT equate gay people with “normal” humans. He’s a disgustingly sick, vile, sack of pus and you disgust me by defending him. What the fuck, you can’t take my word for how this makes me feel? Why? Because you’re not gay? You don’t have a stake in this? So that means you don’t care? Stop trying to think about how this fucking makes you feel and think about the how it affects other people.

Peter Jensen is reprehensible.

Catherine Deveny’s tone does not fucking matter. She’s a human being who cares about others, whether or not she is affected by the shit Jensen spews. I don’t give a flying fuck how she supports gay people or women.

Ing:Golly, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that you’re trying to be polite to people like karadoc. Why would you think such an approach would be effective? Is there any evidence that suggests people respond better to civility and politeness? I think it’s far better to treat hir as Catherine Deveny treated Peter Jensen. It’s much more effective to be rude and intemperate. You should work on being more harsh and shrill.
****

Jensen is a hate filled scumbag. That speaks volumes for anyone who can’t think beyond their privilege to see that his speech is hateful rhetoric that dehumanizes gay people and treats them as subhuman.

“People – interviewers –” she explained, “let Jensen’s kind of homophobic remarks go through to the keeper all the time. I find it infuriating! Catherine didn’t let it go through to the keeper. That’s the difference between kids committing suicide and not committing suicide and Jensen didn’t even seem to care!”

Fuck your reverence of politeness. People are dying because because “polite” arseholes like this are not shouted down.

But hey, maybe you should tell me again how stupid I am. If you say it enough, perhaps we’ll be lucky enough to get a homogeneous society where dissenters like me don’t dare venture. Perhaps you’ve got some more ad hominem attacks to get rid of people you disagree with?

Apologist my arse. I said in every damn post I made that I was against what this Jenson clown was saying. Is it so hard to draw a distinction between offensive ideas and offensive expression of those ideas?

This thread feels like a lynch team.

People tell you that it is more important to focus on WHAT Catherine Deveny and Jensen say.
You think it’s more important to worry about HOW Catherine Deveny speaks.
People tell you that when you pay attention to what Catherine Deveny says, you see that she supports equality for all humans.
AFAIK, you make no mention of that fact.
People tell you that when you pay attention to what Jensen says, you see that he treats gay people and women as second class citizens and less than human.
You say that because Jensen doesn’t *literally* say those words that he’s not that bad.

@147:Tony. No, I hadn’t read 78 until now. I had skipped over that because what I was originally talking about was completely unrelated to Jenson. I’m sorry if what I said later on was offensive to you in the context of what you had said (and what I didn’t read).

Although everyone seems to be talking about Jenson right now, my first post was not about him at all. I wasn’t even talking about the debate about gender roles or anything like that.

–
@149:Koshka. People my well be dieing because of the kinds of things Jenson is trying to propagate. I just don’t think shouting him down on Q&A is going to change anyone’s mind about these things. From my point of view the goal should be to persuade undecided people in the audience that Jenson’s views are damaging. I’m certainly not saying that Deveny should have let homophobic remarks go through to to keeper – I just think she could have been more persuasive if she attacked them differently.

No, I hadn’t read 78 until now. I had skipped over that because what I was originally talking about was completely unrelated to Jenson. I’m sorry if what I said later on was offensive to you in the context of what you had said (and what I didn’t read).

Although everyone seems to be talking about Jenson right now, my first post was not about him at all. I wasn’t even talking about the debate about gender roles or anything like that.

This is why I advise you to back away and stop embarrassing yourself. You don’t seem to be able to grasp what people are talking about or the nuances of the discussion. There’s no shame in that now, not everyone has the same skills.

I’m not saying that she shouted anyone down. In fact, I don’t think she did. I was simply referring to what Koshka said.

Then what is your point? Do you understand Koshka wasn’t saying literal shouting was necessary? These assholes need to be vigorously opposed. We shouldn’t restrain our rhetoric to keep up the appearance of “polite” disagreement. This isn’t some fucking abstract debate that rational, ethical people can coolly and calmly discuss as if they were fucking impartial about it. It fucking matters, because like Koshka said, people die because of this shit.

So how do you think anything will change people’s minds, if it doesn’t involve getting them to understand that?

Although everyone seems to be talking about Jenson right now, my first post was not about him at all. I wasn’t even talking about the debate about gender roles or anything like that.

Yes, we know that.
Many of us have been trying to point out that what Peter Jensen is saying *should* be the focus, because of the hateful shit he’s saying. Instead people want to focus on Catherine’s tone.
In your first post, you close with:

So again, let me just say that although I agreed with Catherine Deveny’s views on Q&A, I also agree with those who criticized her for who showing respect.

Why should she show respect to Peter Jensen? The views he has are abhorrent. That should be the focus. Catherine Deveny should NOT show respect to Bishop McShittypants. She interrupted him twice, Evans once and the host once. She interrupted the same number of times Bishop McShittypants did.
Or are you talking about her interrupting someone else?
Was there someone else YOU think she didn’t respect?
Why didn’t she respect them?
How did she show disrespect?
Details.
You think she was disrespectful. How?
What difference would it make in your eyes for her to be respectful?
Why do you assume that this “respect” is more important than blunt honesty?
Do you have evidence that showing respect is effective for…something?
Or is this just YOUR view of how things should be?

I get on Twitter, click a link from our dear SpokesGay, and find this Karadoc quack trying to minimize anti-gay bigotry?

Now, now.
In karadoc’s defense, there were others here before hir that were minimizing anti-gay bigotry. Paulroberston for instance, was another who chose to focus more on how disrespectful, mean, and shrill Catherine Deveny was, while just barely condemning Peter Jensen. There was also ksolway and fronkey.

You’re painting a false dilema. Those aren’t the only options. It’s possible to participate in debate without being rude. If Deveny had chosen that third path then she would not only have avoided the criticism that she’s received, but she would have been even more persuasive.

Wrong, because in case you didn’t notice, the other woman who just did that, who practised all you preach did hardly get to say a word and those words were drowned out by the men.
So, essentially, you’re painting a third way that only exists in your head.

karadoc
I can understand your stuff being in Comic Sans, but mine?

He did not use ad hominem attacks,

You still haven’T learned what an ad hominem is…

but yet somehow he was able to express this absurd position in a polite and respectful way.

FFS, a position that denies the humanity of half of humankind and declares a large chunk of the other to be filth can’t be expressed in a polite and respectful way

and he was able to respond to them clearly and gracefully.

No. He wriggled around and managed to talk past the actual questions. But you got fooled and that’ because you listen for tone and not for content. That’s probably because you only understand one of these things.

Jenson’s argued in a calm and logical manner, whereas Deveny argued with slogans and name-calling.

A) wrong (see above)
B) a lie (pointed out by others already)

@Josh, I didn’t come here to praise the guy’s etiquette. I was asked directly about whether or not I thought he was polite. I thought I made it pretty clear that I do think his views are monstrous, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t polite.

That’s because he wasn’t.
Let’s try this:
karadoc, these are wonderful arguments. Let me say that I really value your contribution to this thread and I must praise your courage to speak up on such matters and it would be really unfair to pile up on your persnal shortcommings on these subjects. Let’s not forget that the inabilty to parse arguments for their value combined with critical thinking is not something that is given and that it is a great shortcomming in educational systems. Nevertheless we must be allowed to ask questions whether it is proper to allow unrestricted access to the internet to people who, in general, are not sufficiently educated and able to use such communications in an adult manner. I know this is a censored subject, but we must not let censorship get into our way of discussing important topics: We must discuss the dangers for our societies that arise from people known as “trolls” on the internet and we must finally be able to discuss freely how to stop this. This may not be popular but great and revolutionary ideas never were at first.

Wasn’t I polite? And respectful?
Of course I wasn’t, I only used a lot of words to call you an idiot to stupid to understand the arguments here and said you should be banned from the internet. (first part is true, second not)

but never-the-less it is his core beliefs that are at fault – not his manners.

Wrong. It’s fucking rude to suggest that you as a privileged douchebag know more about a marginalized group and what they want and need than they themselves.

Jenson did not say women were worth less than men. In fact he emphasized several times that he thought them to be equal. He was advocating for very concrete gender-roles, but he described those roles as having equal value.

oh gods you are stupid. You’re still falling for the “equal value” crap. It’s like saying the pig and the farmer have equal value on the farm, because there wouldn’t be a farm without either of them, but the farmer gets to slaughter the pig.
If you propose that one has to permanently submit to the rule of the other and you’re making that distinction based on gender you’re obviously placing one above the other. Only you are too stupid to understand that.

His position was that gay sex is a sin; which is a poor position to have, but it is certainly not the same as saying gay people are less than human.

gosh, no, you’re right, he just declared them a public health risk. Where did I hear that before? Ah, yeah, history class…

This thread feels like a lynch team.

Oh poor you. So people here really came to your home, dragged you out ad hung you? If not you’re a whiny crybaby who insisted on playing chess with the adults and then throws a tantrum because they lost.

149:Koshka. People my well be dieing because of the kinds of things Jenson is trying to propagate. I just don’t think shouting him down on Q&A is going to change anyone’s mind about these things.

For Fuck’s sake, it changes the minds of the teens who think about killling themselves. And you’re a fucking asshole because you think it more important to be polite to Jensen than to give those kids a clear signal that hey, here are people who stand up for you, you’re not alone, there’s nothing wrong with you, and they say it loud and brave. But you think the fact that this might stop some kid from killing themselves less important than being polite to the bishop.
Fuck you for that shit. Fuck you for being a gay-bashing apologist.

Damn that was awesome.
I don’t think it’s going to reach karadoc, although I wish it would.
I wish people like that would understand that focusing on Deveny’s tone, rather than her content, while simultaneously diminishing Jensen’s hate speech by saying he was well-spoken serves to help no one. In fact, it continues to privilege religion. There is absolutely NO reason to give Jensen any respect. Catherine Deveny gets my respect. She stood there and supported the rights of gays and women the world over through the CONTENT of her speech. She serves no one by speaking nicely and politely the way other people-people who are unaffected by Jensen’s hatred-want her to speak.
By the FSM, the apologists in this thread are sickening.

There are a few people in this thread who have defended Deveny by asserting that it is acceptable, nay desirable, to employ gratuitous rudeness if one’s cause is just. Indeed, judging by the rest of their comments, they seem to have taken this on as their personal motto. The pile-ons too were a marvel to behold, and obviously well-practised. After all, why say something once, when multiple people can say the same thing much more melodramatically?

The fact is, and this applies to both Deveny and the more spittle-flecked of her supporters, that the minute you lose your cool, you have lost the debate. People simply stop listening. For this reason, cheering on Deveny despite her poor performance is counter-productive. We do Deveny no favours by shielding her from the truth and we teach any aspiring Devenies that this is the way they ought to behave. Comments of “but if she hadn’t behaved as she did, she would of been ignored,” are pure conjecture at this point, but what can be said for sure is that her chosen tactic got her worse than ignored. The press not only failed to take notice of what she said, but they pilloried her for the way she said it. You can tell me to shut up, as some have, for bearing this unfortunate truth, but that will change nothing. If I go away, all that you will have achieved is to have preserved your little dream-world. Such a thing to fight for!

There are a few [MANY] people in this thread who have defended Deveny by asserting that it is acceptable, nay desirable, to employ gratuitous rudeness if one’s cause is just.

Fixed that for you liar and bullshitter, and tone troll.

that the minute you lose your cool, you have lost the debate.

Only in your delusional mind. Facts win debates, not being cool but still lying through your teeth.

People simply stop listening.

Asserted without evidence by a tone troll, so *POOF* dismissed without evidence by the fact based group. You said nothing.

If I go away, all that you will have achieved is to have preserved your little dream-world. Such a thing to fight for!

If you go away, the facts will still be there. Your unevidenced OPINIONS aren’t facts, and your present no evidence. You can’t even show you are right, just claim you are right. You are doing the same thing the preacher does, which is pontificate from AUTHORITY. Except, you have no authority. And false authority should be ridiculed wherever it occurs. We ridicule your posts because of that. When will you mature?

@vaiyt, Jenson did not say women were worth less than men. In fact he emphasized several times that he thought them to be equal. He was advocating for very concrete gender-roles, but he described those roles as having equal value.

Yeah. Equal value. Where one is chattel and the other controls. Are you really that dense, or just deliberately obtuse?

the minute you lose your cool, you have lost the debate.

Which is a convenient situation for those that hurt others. THEY can sit back and say whatever horrible thing that crosses their mind, because it doesn’t affect them.

Actually, we have much anecdotal evidence that this is the point where they begin to think that the person who is cool and calm is a pretentious fool, and what they say may be lies and bullshit. Re-evaluation often begins with ridicule.

The fact is, and this applies to both Deveny and the more spittle-flecked of her supporters, that the minute you lose your cool, you have lost the debate.

How is this a fact?
Where is your evidence to cite this belief that an argument is lost when you lose your cool?
You assert this to be true, so please provide the evidence. Links please.

Also, what pile ons are you whining about? A bunch of anonymous people from across the planet posting around the same time in many cases who agree that arguments of tone are a distraction is not a pile on. Many people would have been typing their responses at the same time.

The “civility” argument rests on the assumption that a conversation will be better advanced if both sides simply express their position in calm and rational terms. The argument fails on the grounds that it assumes that both sides are bringing rational arguments to the table. I can very politely explain why gay people don’t deserve to get married – it does not make my argument have a stitch more validity than it would if I just called everyone “a bunch of fags”. There are very civil ways to dehumanize someone. There are comparatively few ways to civilly invite them to go fuck themselves and their stupid arguments.

In other news from the land of Oz, those who didn’t appreciate Dev’s approach may prefer this.

Channel 7, Sunrise program:

Personally, I think there’s room for a range of approaches and tones of argument in the debate against religion. The main thing is that it *is* challenged and opposed, not necessarily *how*. There is not one single homogenous audience for our message, so why should we deliver it in only one style?

As far as I can see rahter than “losing her cool” all Catherine Deveny did was assert her opinion. I certianly found this fair more appealing than Peter Jensen’s “we need to have a conversation” comments when if fact most of the things he wants a conversation about were sorted out in the minds of fair minded peopled decades ago.
It reminds me of the tactic often described when discussing the tabacco industry and in relation to climate change – trying to sow doubt where there isn’t any.
I found it creepy, dishonest and nauseating. Given me Catherine’s straight up, honest approach anyday – which I think may AUstralians would have appreciated